 |
 |
Upgrade BTO 2.0GHz MacBook Pro VS 2.16GHz MacBook Pro
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator  Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Believe it or not the guy at the Apple Store on campus did a very good job of talking me out of the top end 15.4" MacBook Pro in favor of the low end one. He showed me how, with BTO options like upgrading to 1GB of RAM and the 100GB 7200RPM drive, I could buy almost the same thing as the stock 2.16GHz 15.4" model, with a faster drive and still buy AppleCare for less than $100 more than the stock 2.16GHz model.
My largest question is to people who have seen both in operation. Can anyone tell the difference in performance between a 2.0GHz CoreDuo MacBook Pro and a 2.16GHz MacBook Pro?
I'm looking for validation here-it'll help when I start adding up shipping and tax. 
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ghporter
Believe it or not the guy at the Apple Store on campus did a very good job of talking me out of the top end 15.4" MacBook Pro in favor of the low end one. He showed me how, with BTO options like upgrading to 1GB of RAM and the 100GB 7200RPM drive, I could buy almost the same thing as the stock 2.16GHz 15.4" model, with a faster drive and still buy AppleCare for less than $100 more than the stock 2.16GHz model.
My largest question is to people who have seen both in operation. Can anyone tell the difference in performance between a 2.0GHz CoreDuo MacBook Pro and a 2.16GHz MacBook Pro?
I'm looking for validation here-it'll help when I start adding up shipping and tax.
Based on this report from BareFeats I decided to go with the 2.16. Sorry. I was going to do the same thing as you're talking about, but there appears to be a fairly significant speed difference for some reason.
http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd2.html
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by GoCats
Based on this report from BareFeats I decided to go with the 2.16. Sorry. I was going to do the same thing as you're talking about, but there appears to be a fairly significant speed difference for some reason.
http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd2.html
That comparison link is comparing a 17" MacBook Pro (2.16GHz) with a 15" 2.0GHz MacBook Pro. The 17" model is faster at 3D benchmarks as it has a faster-clocked X1600 chip.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus  Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
I really don't think the difference between the two would be noticeable. Heck, even if it was noticeable, it wouldn't matter that much because you wouldn't be comparing the two models in normal use. The 2Ghz model is very fast.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Under Your Stairs
Status:
Offline
|
|
The difference in 3D benchmark is because the clock/mem speeds ramp up on the 17" when under load. I think the 15" are fixed, but can be increased with the ATI hack. The only actual difference between the base model and the 2.16 that isn't a changeable option is the x1600 is 128MB ram instead of 256MB.
|
|
Sieb
Blackbook
(2Ghz, 2GB, 100Gig, week 21)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sitting in front of computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
You would not notice a difference,
|
|
I free'd my mind... now it won't come back.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top